Orissa HC Sets Aside 34 Year Old Conviction of Persons Under IPC

Must Read

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration,...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be...

Follow us

Orissa HC sets aside 34-year-old judgment convicting two persons under Sec. 304 Part II & Sec. 324 of Indian Penal Code. The names of the accused were Nityananda Behera and Madhab Behera.

Facts of the Case 

In this case, the decision was taken in the village meeting in the presence of five shareholders. It was decided that the Jamun tree would be cut and the trunk utilized for the making of doors and windows of the village high school. The tree was thereafter cut by the villagers. The appellants took a cartload of branches of the tree in the morning to their house and again in the afternoon. The deceased arrived at the spot with a cart to take the branches and found the appellants loading the branches in their cart. They also tried to take the branches but the appellants prevented them.

A fight broke out between the parties and the deceased was assaulted by the Appellant No. 1 Nityananda Behera and Appellant No. 2 Madhab Behera. Appellant No. 1 Nityananda Behera also sustained an injury during the course of the brawl. Nityananda Behera was charged under Sec. 302 of the IPC on the accusation of committing the murder of Raghaba Behera on the 18th of February, 1986. Madhaba Behera was charged under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt to Rohita Behera at the same place and time.

Petitioner’s submission 

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that Madhaba Behera cannot have exceeded his right of private defence of property in causing two simple injuries. They contended that Appellant No. 1 Nityananda Behera also sustained an injury during the incident. No one from the prosecution side had tried to lodge an FIR on the date of the occurrence. It was lodged twenty-two hours after the incident.

Respondent’s Submission 

Rohita Behera, the informant in the case, stated that Appellant No. 1 was standing on the backside of the deceased while delivering the blow on his head with the yoke. The counsel submitted that if the evidence of the doctor is considered, it would appear that if a heavy weapon like a yoke would have been used, it would have caused extensive injury on the head of the deceased and a fracture would be inevitable. 

Court’s Order

After fighting the legal battle for more than thirty-four years, the appellants have won the case. The judgment and order of conviction of Appellant No. 1 Nityananda Behera under Sec. 304 Part II of the IPC and that of the Appellant No. 2 Madhab Behera under Sec. 324 of the IPC and the sentence passed under is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. The appellants are on bail by the orders of this Court. They are discharged from liability of their bail bonds. The personal bonds and the surety bonds stand cancelled. 


Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments of the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

Himachal Pradesh High Court Supports Promotion Based on Seniority of Post Rather Based on the Eligibility Test

In the case of Ramesh Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others, the petitioner, reached the court as he was aggrieved by the...

NCDRC Dismisses PIL against Urologist, Holy Family Hospital, Says Mode Of Treatment Or Skill Differs From Doctor To Doctor

The National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissed a petition against Holy Family Hospital and a Urologist, alleging negligence in diagnosing the septicemia and...

Himachal Pradesh High Court Disposes Suit for Possession and Permanent Prohibitory Injunction Due To Mutual Consent

In the case of Parveen Kumar vs Smt. Vijay Laxmi and Ors, the Petitioner, Parveen had filed a suit for declaration, possession and a permanent prohibitory...

Supreme Court Appoints Committee To Examine Arbitrariness of Sealing of Resorts in Elephant Corridor, Tamil Nadu

A Full Bench headed by the Chief Justice of India, in the matter of Hospitality Association of Mudumalai V. In Defence of Environment and Animals...

Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules That Export Ban on N95 Masks & PPE Kits Does Not Violate Fundamental Right of Traders

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the formulation and regulation of trade policies were within the subjects of the Central Government. Any reasonable...

Delhi High Court Issues Notice To Two Pleas Filed Praying for Recognition of Same-Sex Marriage

The Court heard two writ petitions which urged that the Special Marriage Act and the Foreign Marriage Act be interpreted to also apply to...

Supreme Court Allows Appeal Challenging Allahabad High Court Order Granting Interim Bail on Medical Grounds

An appeal was filed before the Supreme Court, challenging the Judgment & Order of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of State of U.P...

Bombay High Court Allows Petition Seeking Lawyers and Legal Clerks To Travel in Local Trains

The present hearing arose out of a batch of Public Interest Litigations that was filed in the Bombay High Court to permit the members...

Provisions for Retirement of Teachers Must Be Read With the Larger Interest of Students in Mind: Supreme Court

Supreme Court in Navin Chandra Dhoundiyal v State of Uttarakhand reinstated the appellants to their position as Professor on basis of re-employment till the...

Parties Cannot Deny Specific Performance Merely Due To Delay: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, in Ferrodous Estate v P Gopirathnam, revisited the law on the specific performance of a contract. It reiterated that mere delay...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -